Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saor Uladh

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was references provided, removing nomination, reason for deletion nomination no longer applies.. Canterbury Tail talk 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Saor Uladh]]=

:{{la|Saor Uladh}} ([{{fullurl:Saor Uladh|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saor Uladh}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No claims to notability (well that's probably stretching it), however the real reason for nominating is the entire article has been tagged as unreferenced for a year now. No references have been provided for what is put forward as an important organisation. Canterbury Tail talk 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, obviously creator not interested in sourcing. Or it's really not that important. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; The author of the page has probably known about the fact it is unreferenced (and there are two {{fact}}'s in a short article!) for a year, and the fact that he hasn't changed it is quite unusual. [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS259US260&q=Saor+Uladh Google] didn't mention too much either. K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important historical page I will work on finding some sources a google books search [http://books.google.ie/books?q=Saor+Uladh&btnG=Search+Books throws] up a lot of hits. BigDuncTalk 09:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Group is notable if article correctly represents its activities. But surely there must be newspaper or other write ups of the group? If none are found, the page should be deleted as unverified WP:OR. LK (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment I have added a couple of sources to the article. BigDuncTalk 13:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

::*Comment - Fine, as long as the material can be referenced I have no issues with the article. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Sources are now beginning to take shape and I personally will continue to work on adding more whilst I'm sure BigDunc will continue his sterling work. If the Dail Uladh business continues to cause problems with references then it can be removed. However the reason for nomination (unreferenced) seems to be at least on the way to being satisfied. Keresaspa (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sources have been provided, original delete proposal no longer applies. If no one has any objections we can close this one down. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree I'll lend a hand with sourcing first chance I get. --Domer48'fenian' 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.